The Federal Constitutional Court Pakistan (FCCP), has dismissed an appeal filed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa government against the Peshawar High Court’s ruling that barred the assignment of the additional charge of Sub-Registrar to Tehsildars, Naib Tehsildars and Qanoongos, holding that appointments to the post could only be made in accordance with the relevant service rules.
A two-member bench comprising Chief Justice, Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah announced the reserved judgment, authored by Justice Shah, on an appeal filed by the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Board of Revenue.
The court ruled that following the amendment to the relevant rules through a notification issued on January 23, 2020, the posts of Sub-Registrar could only be filled through promotion from among Head Registration Moharrirs on the basis of seniority and fitness. After the amendment, there was no legal provision allowing officers from any other cadre to be appointed or assigned the additional charge of Sub-Registrar.
The judgment held that the Inspector General Registration had acted in clear violation of the rules by assigning the additional charge of Sub-Registrar to Tehsildars, Naib Tehsildars and Qanoongos. Consequently, such appointments had no legal validity.
The court also rejected the government’s contention that under Section 6 of the Registration Act, 1908, the government could appoint any person as Sub-Registrar. It observed that not every administrative action taken in the name of the government constituted a decision of the government. Such decisions must receive approval from the provincial cabinet. In the present case, the appointments were made by the Inspector General Registration without cabinet approval and therefore could not be treated as appointments made by the government.
The Federal Constitutional Court further held that rules framed under a statute constitute subordinate legislation and was binding on the government as well as all relevant authorities. The government could not act in violation of the very rules it has framed.
Rejecting the objection regarding Article 212 of the Constitution, the court observed that the case did not involve an individual employee’s service grievance but concerned the enforcement of mandatory statutory rules and the legality of administrative actions taken in violation of those rules. Therefore, the Peshawar High Court had full jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution to hear the matter.
The court concluded that the Peshawar High Court’s judgment was comprehensive, legally sound and fully supported by the record. Finding no merit in the appeal, it dismissed the case as well as the application seeking leave to appeal.